Friendlysociopath wrote:I don't see why not. It's the same series, same makers, and same character- why wouldn't this be something important to note between games? The weapon is still canon to the Metroid-verse and visually it wasn't remotely close to those other things. I fail to see why the two cannot be compared since the correlation isn't even needed. If 'laser' was only restricted to one definition and method of use- they'd not make two weapons with the same description such as that and then have them wildly be different.

It's the Prime series weapons and different makers. I don't see how same character means something for a weapon.And it looks visually different, as I pointed out, because it's a different kind of laser, specifically a quantum cascade laser. Of course it's going to look different because it is a different laser.An electrolaser wouldn't look the same as a quantum cascade laser.

Also, I don't see why you would side with Aelfinn if he then disagrees with game speed. That kinda refutes that whole compare lasers between different games.

Friendlysociopath wrote:I don't see why not. It's the same series, same makers, and same character- why wouldn't this be something important to note between games? The weapon is still canon to the Metroid-verse and visually it wasn't remotely close to those other things. I fail to see why the two cannot be compared since the correlation isn't even needed. If 'laser' was only restricted to one definition and method of use- they'd not make two weapons with the same description such as that and then have them wildly be different.

It's the Prime series weapons and different makers. I don't see how same character means something for a weapon.And it looks visually different, as I pointed out, because it's a different kind of laser, specifically a quantum cascade laser. Of course it's going to look different because it is a different laser.An electrolaser wouldn't look the same as a quantum cascade laser.

Also, I don't see why you would side with Aelfinn if he then disagrees with game speed. That kinda refutes that whole compare lasers between different games.

Aelfinn disagrees in that game speed refutes objects on the basis of them being slow- which I agree with since otherwise you'd be almost unable to gauge anything beyond human levels since that's all we can comprehend.Two objects that should share the same speed that clearly do not was not something he agreed (AFAIK) to and even if he did, I wouldn't. Furthermore, he specifically meant in-game speed as opposed to cutscene speeds since you guys kept showing the one scene of the nova beam and I recall him having issues with it.That said, I PM'd him to stop by when he has the time so I'm content to wait for a bit.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Aelfinn disagrees in that game speed refutes objects on the basis of them being slow- which I agree with since otherwise you'd be almost unable to gauge anything beyond human levels since that's all we can comprehend.

He disagrees on any speed showings comparison in gameplay. Which, it is why he refuses to compare any projectiles to the speed booster or anything I suppose.Game speed and in-game speed are the same thing.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the imperialist is a different kind of a laser which is why it would be different.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Two objects that should share the same speed that clearly do not was not something he agreed (AFAIK) to and even if he did, I wouldn't. Furthermore, he specifically meant in-game speed as opposed to cutscene speeds since you guys kept showing the one scene of the nova beam and I recall him having issues with it.

I don't recall his opinion on any of this, but I do recall that his opinion was that he didn't accept any speed comparisons in gameplay which is what you're doing.

If no information is given, even if the firearm looks like a real-world firearm, this won't be regarded with the same speed as the real-world counterpart.

Visual appearances counts as 'information given'- visual information. If the weapon strongly resembles a real-world counterpart then there's no reason to not use it.

Consider the following- guns and cars in live-action. Guns often shoot people off of their feat, send them flying, blast holes through tanks/walls and many other things modern firearms simply do not do (some do but we see even pistols do this). If we don't simply say "That looks like a glock and therefor has the stats of a glock" then they've have some fictional super-pistol that has far more power than what we have.Same with cars. Think of any given action movie where the bad guys empty clip after clip into the car and the car is not only fine- everyone in it suffers no damage at all? The cars would be better than some military armored cars.

When a weapon is discernible as a real-world weapon based on appearances, it should be gauged by its real-world stats. So if a guy is shown firing a M16 then it's assumed the bullets will fire like a M16 in terms of speed, RPM, and everything else.An exception would be anything with the word "customized" with it since these then are given at least a reason for varying with their real-world counterparts.

@FriendlysociopathEven counterfeit money and products resemble the real things. Consider the following: You observe a man. He behaves like any typical male. He's an upstanding citizen. Everything he does is not unusual or out of the ordinary. Suppose one day he sees a car crash into a tree and he runs to the accident and rips the door off its hinges and saves the victim. How did this man do that? Was it adrenaline? Was it superhuman strength? Is this man an android? You don't know. You need more evidence. Appearance isn't enough.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:@FriendlysociopathEven counterfeit money and products resemble the real things. Consider the following: You observe a man. He behaves like any typical male. He's an upstanding citizen. Everything he does is not unusual or out of the ordinary. Suppose one day he sees a car crash into a tree and he runs to the accident and rips the door off its hinges and saves the victim. How did this man do that? Was it adrenaline? Was it superhuman strength? Is this man an android? You don't know. You need more evidence. Appearance isn't enough.

Rule 12 already dictates we assume by default that elements found in fiction that are based in real life match their real life counterpart. So any traits or materials associated with that element would be assumed to be the same as how it is in the real world until proven otherwise. To take your example, we would consider that man to be a normal ordinary man until he displays those extraordinary traits. But those feats has to actually happen first. So in the case of the M16 (or any gun for that matter) we would assume that it is the same as that of their real world counterparts until proven otherwise.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:@FriendlysociopathEven counterfeit money and products resemble the real things. Consider the following: You observe a man. He behaves like any typical male. He's an upstanding citizen. Everything he does is not unusual or out of the ordinary. Suppose one day he sees a car crash into a tree and he runs to the accident and rips the door off its hinges and saves the victim. How did this man do that? Was it adrenaline? Was it superhuman strength? Is this man an android? You don't know. You need more evidence. Appearance isn't enough.

Rule 12 already dictates we assume by default that elements found in fiction that are based in real life match their real life counterpart. So any traits or materials associated with that element would be assumed to be the same as how it is in the real world until proven otherwise. To take your example, we would consider that man to be a normal ordinary man until he displays those extraordinary traits. But those feats has to actually happen first. So in the case of the M16 (or any gun for that matter) we would assume that it is the same as that of their real world counterparts until proven otherwise.

The burden of proof doesn't work like that. Rule 12 is in violation of this as it already assumes something to be so until it's disproved. That's illogical.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:The burden of proof doesn't work like that. Rule 12 is in violation of this as it already assumes something to be so until it's disproved. That's illogical.

We had a discussion on this subject before. Anything and everything is possible in fiction, and it is technically an unproven assumption to say that "humans" in a setting have biology similar to ours; even if they were shown to have blood, for example, it would be an assumption to say that blood carries oxygen or is otherwise similar to our blood.

Everything in a fictional setting could be taking place at just above absolute zero; the planets could be smaller than atoms; physics could have different constants; birds might be unable to fly despite looking exactly like real-life birds; etcetera.

Rule 12 is absolutely necessary if we are to have any sort of meaningful debate of fictional items. Without it, virtually no argument could ever be made regarding fictional items without someone being able to point out a plethora of assumptions that would render said argument entirely futile. That's why it exists, and I don't see why it would be questioned.

"X has bent steel with his bare hands before, so he's stronger than Y, who has not.""But steel in that world could be as weak as paper in ours, and flesh in Y's world could be 10 times tougher than steel, so we can't determine who is stronger.""Oh. Well, bye then."

Instead of indulging that fun-seeming scenario, we function with the assumption that everything is similar to real life, as does every other fiction-debating site.